Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Proceeding Annual Research Seminar (ARS) is committed to maintaining academic integrity, transparency, fairness, and ethical standards throughout the scholarly publication process. As a conference proceedings publication managed by Universitas Sriwijaya, ARS is dedicated to promoting responsible research practices and preserving the integrity of the scholarly record.

This publication ethics statement is developed with reference to the principles and best-practice guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (Version 4, 2022).

ARS uses COPE guidelines as a reference for ethical publication practices and does not claim formal membership in, certification by, or endorsement from COPE.

The following policies define the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, the conference committee, and the publisher.

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, objective, independent, and transparent editorial process.

Editors must:

  • Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and scientific contribution.

  • Make editorial decisions without discrimination based on authors' personal backgrounds, nationalities, institutional affiliations, religious beliefs, or political views.

  • Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities, where applicable.

  • Disclose and appropriately manage potential conflicts of interest.

  • Assign manuscripts to reviewers with relevant expertise and sufficient independence.

  • Investigate credible allegations of publication misconduct and take appropriate corrective action.

  • Make publication decisions based on the academic quality of manuscripts, reviewers' evaluations, and ARS editorial policies.

  • Maintain editorial independence from commercial, institutional, or personal influences.

Editors must not use unpublished information obtained through the editorial process for personal research or professional advantage without appropriate authorization.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publications in ARS.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, professional, and evidence-based evaluations.

  • Treat submitted manuscripts and unpublished information as confidential.

  • Declare potential conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained.

  • Evaluate manuscripts according to scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, clarity, and relevance.

  • Inform editors of substantial similarities with previously published research or suspected ethical violations.

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editorial office of any delays.

  • Refrain from using unpublished manuscript information for personal or professional benefit.

  • Avoid discriminatory, offensive, or personally directed comments.

Reviewers must not disclose confidential manuscript content to unauthorized individuals or external services without appropriate editorial authorization.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting manuscripts to ARS are expected to uphold academic honesty, research integrity, transparency, and responsible scholarly practices.

Authors must:

  • Submit original scholarly work that has not been published previously or simultaneously submitted to another publication venue, except where transparent disclosure and applicable editorial policies permit.

  • Accurately report research methods, data, results, analyses, and limitations.

  • Properly acknowledge and cite relevant scholarly sources, datasets, software, and other intellectual contributions.

  • Avoid plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, citation manipulation, and inappropriate alteration of research findings.

  • Ensure that all listed authors have made meaningful contributions to the research and have approved the submitted manuscript.

  • Disclose relevant funding sources and potential conflicts of interest.

  • Obtain appropriate permissions, informed consent, and ethical approvals when required.

  • Provide sufficient methodological information to support scholarly evaluation and, where feasible, reproducibility.

  • Promptly notify the editorial team if significant errors or ethical concerns are identified in submitted or published work.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their manuscripts.

4. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial scholarly contributions to the research and manuscript.

All listed authors should have participated meaningfully in the research or preparation of the manuscript, approved the final version, and accepted appropriate responsibility for their contributions.

Individuals whose contributions do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.

Guest authorship, gift authorship, ghost authorship, and other forms of inappropriate authorship attribution are not acceptable.

Any proposed changes to authorship after submission must be explained to the editorial office and supported by the agreement of the authors concerned.

Disputes concerning authorship will be evaluated based on the available evidence and applicable publication ethics guidance.

5. Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

ARS does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, fraudulent authorship, manipulated peer review, or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

Submitted manuscripts may be assessed using similarity-detection tools and editorial evaluation.

A similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism. The context, nature, extent, and attribution of textual similarities must also be examined.

Suspected misconduct will be assessed fairly and objectively, with an opportunity for the individuals concerned to provide explanations and supporting evidence.

Where warranted, the editorial office may request clarification, manuscript revision, additional documentation, or an institutional investigation.

Depending on the circumstances and available findings, editorial actions may include rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

ARS refers to relevant COPE guidance when evaluating and responding to allegations of research or publication misconduct.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in editorial decisions must disclose financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal relationships that could reasonably influence their work or judgment.

Potential conflicts may include financial interests, research collaborations, personal relationships, institutional connections, or professional competition.

Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and funding relationships associated with their research.

Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts before participating in manuscript evaluation.

The editorial team will take appropriate measures to manage declared conflicts, including assigning alternative editors or reviewers when necessary.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of financial, institutional, and personal interests.

7. Research Ethics, Data Integrity, and Reproducibility

Research involving human participants, personal information, or other ethically sensitive materials must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and relevant ethical approval procedures.

Authors are responsible for obtaining informed consent and institutional ethical approval when required.

Research methods, data collection procedures, analytical approaches, and reported findings must be described accurately and transparently.

Authors should provide sufficient methodological information to enable meaningful scientific assessment and, where feasible, reproducibility.

Research data must be accurately represented, responsibly managed, and retained appropriately.

Data-sharing expectations must respect privacy, confidentiality, legal restrictions, intellectual property rights, and applicable institutional policies.

Fabrication, falsification, selective misrepresentation, and intentional concealment of significant research limitations are unacceptable.

ARS may request supporting information when necessary to assess research integrity or address credible ethical concerns.

8. Peer Review Integrity

Manuscripts submitted to ARS undergo editorial assessment and peer review in accordance with the established editorial policies of the proceedings.

The peer review process is intended to evaluate the originality, scientific contribution, methodological soundness, clarity, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts independently, objectively, professionally, and confidentially.

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the review process and addressing evidence of manipulated, fraudulent, or compromised reviews.

Editorial decisions must be based on academic considerations rather than conference registration, sponsorship, financial contributions, or personal relationships.

Detailed information regarding the review model, reviewer selection, evaluation procedures, and editorial decision-making process is provided in the ARS Peer Review Process policy.

9. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

ARS is committed to maintaining the accuracy, transparency, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record.

When substantial errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the editorial team will assess the available evidence and determine an appropriate response.

Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, the response may include:

  • Correction: A published notice addressing significant errors that do not invalidate the main findings.

  • Expression of Concern: A published notice informing readers of serious unresolved concerns regarding the reliability or integrity of a publication.

  • Retraction: A published notice identifying a publication whose findings are unreliable or whose publication involved serious ethical violations.

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice should clearly identify the affected publication, explain the reasons for the action, and preserve a transparent scholarly record.

Where appropriate, notices should be linked to the original publication and remain publicly accessible.

ARS refers to relevant COPE guidance when determining appropriate post-publication actions.

10. Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may submit complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics, peer review, editorial decisions, or published content through the official ARS editorial contact channels provided on the proceedings website.

Complaints will be considered fairly, objectively, and confidentially where appropriate.

The editorial team will assess the nature of the complaint, review relevant information, and request clarification or supporting evidence when necessary.

Individuals involved in an allegation should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Authors may request reconsideration of editorial decisions by providing substantive reasons and supporting evidence.

Appeals should be reviewed by an editor or responsible party who can provide an impartial assessment and has no unmanaged conflict of interest concerning the matter.

Where appropriate, complaints may be referred to relevant institutional authorities for further investigation.

Editorial decisions concerning complaints and appeals must be guided by fairness, transparency, due process, and applicable publication ethics principles.

11. Intellectual Property and Copyright

Authors must respect intellectual property rights and obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted materials when necessary.

All sources of third-party content, including text, figures, tables, datasets, and other intellectual contributions, must be appropriately acknowledged.

Copyright ownership, publication licensing, and reuse permissions are governed by the published copyright and licensing policies of ARS.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted manuscripts do not infringe the intellectual property rights of other parties.

Information concerning copyright and licensing must be communicated transparently through the relevant ARS publication policies.

12. Post-Publication Discussion

ARS welcomes evidence-based scholarly discussion, academic criticism, and notifications of potential inaccuracies in published research.

Readers, researchers, and other stakeholders may raise concerns regarding published articles through the official ARS editorial contact channels.

Substantive concerns will be assessed by the editorial team based on relevant evidence and applicable publication ethics policies.

Where appropriate, ARS may publish clarifications, corrections, expressions of concern, retraction notices, or other editorial statements to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Post-publication discussions should be conducted professionally, respectfully, and in accordance with academic integrity principles.

13. Publisher's and Conference Committee's Responsibilities

The publisher and editorial management of ARS are responsible for supporting editorial independence, maintaining publication records, facilitating ethical complaint handling, and ensuring that publication decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations.

The Conference Committee is responsible for supporting the ethical and transparent organization of the Annual Research Seminar and coordinating conference-related activities within its designated responsibilities.

The publisher, editorial team, and conference committee must:

  • Support the integrity and transparency of the scholarly publication process.

  • Respect the independence of editorial evaluation and manuscript selection.

  • Ensure that conflicts of interest affecting publication decisions are appropriately disclosed and managed.

  • Promote responsible scholarly communication and ethical conference practices.

  • Maintain accurate publication information and appropriate records.

  • Cooperate in addressing credible allegations of research or publication misconduct.

  • Ensure that commercial, institutional, financial, or personal interests do not improperly influence editorial judgments.

The responsibilities of the conference committee and editorial team must be clearly distinguished according to their respective roles in conference organization and scholarly publication.

14. Reference to COPE Guidelines

The publication ethics policies of Proceeding Annual Research Seminar (ARS) are informed by the ethical principles and best-practice guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

COPE is an independent organization that provides guidance and resources to promote integrity, transparency, and ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

ARS uses relevant COPE guidelines as references in establishing and implementing its publication ethics policies, particularly concerning authorship, editorial responsibilities, peer review integrity, conflicts of interest, research misconduct, complaints, corrections, and retractions.

ARS is not a member of COPE. The use of COPE guidelines is intended solely as a reference for ethical publishing practices and does not imply formal membership, certification, or endorsement by COPE.

References

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Official Website. https://publicationethics.org/

  2. COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. (2022). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (Version 4). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12